Funny, in the late 1990's there was wave of school shootings like Columbine and Jonesboro. Back then, there was a assault weapon ban like the proposed one now. It did not help those kids. In China, there has been a few school stabbing. Gun laws didn't help those kids. Focus on society producing murderers instead whining about gun owners.

Assault weapons, specifically, are not the problem. This has already been thoroughly discussed. Some politicians are just going after assault weapons because that is a fight they can win.

The school stabbings in China are actually a good example of why gun laws ARE a good idea. None of the school stabbings in China resulted in more than 10 fatalities and that is in the context of more than 40 children in the classroom. Several of the stabbings, including the most recent one, resulted in no fatalities.

You can stop knife wielding maniacs with a security guard armed with pepper spray; which is now the route that China is taking (all of the attacks occurred in schools without security, so beginning this year all schools in China will require security guards). If we wanted school security in the USA to have a realistic chance of stopping maniacs guns, we'd need to give school security guards guns. Do we really want guards with lethal weapons patrolling our schools?

Somehow the last paragraph is shocking. One-quarter of one million people may be trying to influence the NRA for reasons other than "getting so cocky." I'm not trying to play Devil's Advocate, but the ARS TECHNICA blog offers a different viewpoint on the free shooting app. It may be right.
*...And yet the NRA has already had some success at shifting the conversation away from "guns" and back to violent video games. The new app also fits that strategy and, in doing so, might actually do more good than harm for the NRA.
*http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/the-nras-new-shooting-app-isnt-the...

The fact that we are again talking about re-establishing the "assault" weapon ban, which was abandoned because it was determined to be useless, is proof that this has nothing to do with preventing deaths and everything to do with scoring political points. Since someone can kill just as many people without a bayonet post, flash supressor, pistol grip, or collapsable stock (all things that were banned under the old "assault" weapon ban), banning them again as the President proposes must be yet another political ploy. I agree with his plans to improve mental health, improve the process to report mental health care to the background database, and require more background checks, but where is the mention about reducing the amount of violence that our children are bombarded with in video games, movies and TV shows? Where is the mention of encouraging parents to play more active roles in their children's lives in order to prevent events like this most recent one and holding them accountable when they don't. But I guess that would be inappropriate for the government to encourage people to be better parents and hold them responsible when they aren't. Or maybe they are too busy banning bayonet posts and flash suppressors.

She was held responsible by her son for trying to get him committed (which is a multiple week process thanks to the laws that protect the mentally ill). She has not been held responsible by the media, the President, or, had she not been killed, she would not have been held responsible by the current laws. Instead, the politicians, the media, and anti-gunners want to hold me, a legal gun owner with a clean background, responsible and punish me by taking away my rights to protect my family. If the President wanted Congress to write some laws that prevented massacres and held the right people accountable, here are just a few I would recommend:

1) Make it a felony to provide access for a clearly mentally unstable person to a gun.

2) Make it a felony to not commit and report to the database someone who is deemed a danger to others (this probably would have prevented the VA Tech and Colorado shootings). Allow a court appeal process for the committed.

3) Make mandatory minimum sentencing for people who provide weapons illegally to those not allowed to have them (the woman who bought the guns for the Columbine shooters got off on a plea deal).

4) Make it a felony for teachers to not stop obvious bullying (the teachers at Columbine watched and did nothing while bullies poured ketchup on the two shooters in the same cafeteria where they would later enact their revenge).

5) Allow courts to order mandatory medications for severely mentally unstable people and make it a felony if you fail to take them (would have stopped the UNC shooting 15 years ago).

6) Make it much easier to commit and hold someone in a mental facility (ask a police officer or a DA and he/she will tell you that someone has to commit a felony before you can commit them for longer than 72hours).

7) Make it a felony to give children under 18 access to Mature rated video games.

These all seem to me to be more effective at saving lives and holding the correct people accountable than by making it a felony for me to buy a gun with a bayonet post, a flash suppressor, and a collapsible stock. But again, it seems this recent photo opportunity is about scoring political points and distracting us from their incompetence in solving our fiscal mess, not about making people safer.

I agreed with your first post, but I think you took it a bit too far with this one. We can't solve the issue we're having with legislation. That's the lazy solution, in my opinion. The real problem is the society we've been building. We, as a nation, have lost our morals. When people know more about who snooki is dating than what's actually written in our constitution, you know you have a problem. Who's to blame? Where do we start fixing the issue? These are complex questions that have complex solutions. Thomas Jefferson told us that every generation needs to have a revolution. Not necessarily the type that overthrows the government, but a revolution of the mind. One in which we can take everything we were taught and examine it. Throw out the things that are no longer relevant and start fresh again. That's what it will take to fix America. I only fear that the next generation has already started down the same slope my generation went down...

Here are some rules which could surely save lives immediately:
1. No guns allowed in the living premises where any person resides who has ever received a prescription for an antipsychotic medication, or a psychiatric diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar I, or psychotic depression. It would be a minor matter to cross reference pharmaceutical prescription data, and psychiatric diagnosis data, with gun permit/application data.
2. Guns must be kept in secure, locked enclosures and/or have trigger locks. It would not be so onerous to have each permitted gun owner take a digital photograph of their current, complying, locking and security system, and email it to a central gun permit clearinghouse to demonstrate the compliant storage or locking of their gun/s.
3. All gun owners must pass a rigorous exam on gun safety and gun ownership rules, just like those who seek a permit to drive an automobile.
4. No person convicted of any violent criminal offense should be permitted to own a gun.
5. Each person whose home and life are free of guns gets an annual tax credit for their contribution to the reduction of potential gun violence and deaths in the amount of 200 American dollars.

1. "It would be a minor matter to cross reference pharmaceutical prescription data, and psychiatric diagnosis data, with gun permit/application data."
.
Are you kidding?
.
2. "Guns must be kept in secure, locked enclosures and/or have trigger locks."
.
IOW, guns must be useless as a means of self-defense.
."It would not be so onerous to have each permitted gun owner take a digital photograph of their current, complying, locking and security system, and email it to a central gun permit clearinghouse to demonstrate the compliant storage or locking of their gun/s."
.
It would be even less onerous to take the pic then unsecure the gun. If there was a prize for most useless regulation, this would take the gold.
.
3. Sure.
.
4. Which state allows violent ex-cons to own guns?
.
5. You get another prize for worst subsidy idea ever.

You miss one thing sir. Most killings happening in our time are by otherwise normal, mentally stable, reasonable people. I am not talking about U.S.-Iraq, Russia-Georgia,or Croatia-Serbia. I am talking about someone you may heard of---a guy saw a message on his wife's phone and shoot the other guy, a devoting Christian who got his religion cursed by a laughing Muslim, etc. etc.

It took some experience for a guy to keep it cool all the time. And unfortunately, guns serve the purpose when someone is not rational anymore and just want to shoot the one.

I like your thinking. Most of my friends here in Kentucky already follow those suggestions and are in the group of legal, safe gun owners. It's the medical crazies that give the rest of us a bad reputation.

Some examples to back up your statements would be nice. No matter how upset of pi$$ed off I've been, I have never once considered assaulting another individual. I do understand since the days of the hippies, that self-control has not been high on people's agenda, but maybe we should consider promoting self control and a morality that considers human life to be sacred and/or valuable.

It would sounds reasonable from a peace promoter. But from a guy of your perspective (pro-gun rights). Huh, seriously pal?

When you promote gun rights, keep in mind what your fellow Americans have done, massacring women, children, and other citizens in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa. Then promote "self control and a morality that considers human life to be sacred and/or valuable". This actually sounds disgusting from a guy named "pro-gun".

You think Muslims hating Americans because they are intrinsically evil. You are wrong. They prey to their God before blowing up themselves together with you.

Is anyone else annoyed by the vagueness and outdateded-ness of the Second Amendment? It was clearly made for a different era and time period, in much the same way that the 3/5th clause vaguely referred to slaves in our original Constitution. The 3/5th clause was struck with the 14th Amendment, yet the 2nd Amendment still remains. Where's the logic and justice?

I (almost) applaud you for being forthright and implicitly observing that you feel their should be an amendment to the constitution. Most libs, including the economist, would just prefer to ignore it all together.

The US Constitution was NOT written based on a time or place. It was written based on human nature, which has NOT changed. All the rights listed in the Bill of Rights (the first 10 ammendments, without which the constitution would never have been adopted) are unalienable rights. That means that we have those rights even if the constitution had never been written. It is just a question of whether or not we are going to let those rights be stripped from us as a result of thoughtless, knee-jerk legislation and executive oders that will have no effect on crime, but will ony disarm good pople.

Mandatory trigger locks - that are used - could have kept Newtown from happening. Gun owners ought to be responsible for securing the guns that they own. If the shooter hadn't killed his mother first, she ought to have faced jail time for effectively giving him her weapons.

Yes. You own it, you are responsible for it. The laughable thing is parents delude themselves into thinking they can hide or lock away guns or anything else from their children. Any kid knows and can find anything a parent can conceive of hiding.

Yeah and that is why most responsible parents properly instruct them on what it is, and why it is not a toy. If all households were as careless as you imply there should be nothing shy of 50 million accidental gun deaths in the coming year. But there never will be.

If we enacted such a law, once the first elderly vet with a hunting rifle gets his gun stolen by a drugged up neighborhood kid and is sent off to prison, you'd be the first to call for repeal. Proposing draconian new laws then opposing them once enacted may win you votes but you won't get mine.

"you'd be the first to call for repeal."
No. You buy it, you own it. And the responsibility.
If you can't secure your guns from theft, especially from some drugged up kid, then you have no business owning them. Same can be said of one's car.
Or if your house burns down. >You< are responsible for your house.
This belief in personal responsibility is more common in Japan, and it works.

You make it sound as if you can cross a state line and buy a firearm. That is simply not true, you can only buy guns in your home state. If you wanted to buy a gun out of state you would have to pay to have it shipped to a dealer in your home state and then go through the proper background checks.

"You make it sound as if you can cross a state line and buy a firearm. That is simply not true, you can only buy guns in your home state."
I know that this isn't "Johnson", the language blog, but that would be relevant here. It appears that guest-ieeninnj fails to appreciate the difference in meaning between "can" and "may".

To your point,
"Nowadays, the rules aren’t so cut and dried. Since the second half of the 19th century, “can” has been used in informal contexts to denote permission (2). You’ve probably heard someone ask, “Can I go to the party?” If we lived in strict-grammar land, the authorities would complain about this usage, but these days it is acceptable to use “can” in this manner if you’re speaking informally (3)."(1)
1.(http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/can-versus-may2.aspx
2. Burchfield, R. W, ed. The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage. Third edition. New York: Oxford, 1996, p. 126.
3. American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005, p. 74.
I would not consider this a formal venue.

I, for one, wouldn't say "can", when I meant "may", even in the most informal of contexts. "Can I use your bathroom?" sounds absurd, when one means, "May I?" "Can I get through the storm?" makes sense.
But, aside from that, in this discussion the distinction between what is permitted and what is possible is part of the central core of the argument.
"You make it sound as if you can cross a state line and buy a firearm." That is exactly right. Anyone can cross a state line and buy a firearm. Many do. The legallity or not of that is entirely irrelevant.
It is also illegal, in many places, to buy alcohol in one jurisdiction but many do it. I do it. What is to stop a person? There are no customs on state lines.
"...you can only buy guns in your home state", is a ludicrous and patently untrue statement. They can easily be bought elsewhere. And, I agree, it's illegal. So what? What does that do?
This is the problem facing those jurisdictions in the USA which pass strong gun control laws. They are locally uneforceable without customs checks on the state lines or uniform, national regulations.
What a person "can do" versus "may do" is not picking nits. It is the essence of the question.
This is like the official who said that there was no AIDS in Thailand; there couldn't be. Prostitution is illegal. It confuses what is regulated with what is.

There are millions currently in circulation, even if you stop the manufacture of them.
Also,stopping the manufacture of them ensures the value of the existing ones will go up, creating a black market for their importation.
We went through this from 1994-2004--remember?

Such magazines ( clips are relly not used in assault weapons) arte easily modified with metal working tools and new springs.
One could forbid such modification. And how would the enforcer of this prohibition actually detect it? What probable cause would justify such an inspection?

So, still waiting for that constitutional ammendment that enables all this regulation... The left is all pumped up and fully politicizing the events in connecticut that one would expect them to go for up. I'd be proud because they wouldn't be making an end run around the constitution. The most fearful part of this is the president doing with executive order what he cannot do by law, and doing by law what is unconstitutional.

I don't know if firearms in the hands of citizens by themselves can stop a tyranney. I do know that a tyranney always makes it a priority to go after the firearms in the hands of citizens.

So, the group that got exterminated... They didn't have the guns. If you want to discuss nazis, be my guest.

Thanks for enlightening me about this gun control bullet point. Perhaps I'm wrong also about peasants being forbidden to have weapons as well. any other historical situations?

When you wish to dominate someone, or a class of people, gun, or no gun, I think it's pretty obvious you disarm them first. If you recognize that you're being disarmed its best to be very cautios as someone may be looking to dominate you. Apparently if your jewish and you're being disarmed, and nobody else is, this might be an indicator.

Another historical bit that is interesting is that those actively seeking arms are generally trying to cause political change at gunpoint. Mao's famous "Political power grows from the barrel of a gun." A Chinese example was that after Sun yat sen was deposed amicably but at gun point by the Yuan Shikai, he realized that political power without force was useless and set up a military government in Guangdong and endeavored to arm and train a party army for the KMT.

Also, think about the term, "being disarmed." That means someone is coming to your home and removing your guns.

Preventing future gun sales is not "being disarmed."

A voluntary buyback program is not "being disarmed."

Getting a background check is not "being disarmed."

All of the things that are characterized as "being disarmed" are technically just "limiting the types and volume of arms people can buy in the future."

With your attempt to parse "being disarmed" you're wandering into Bill Clinton territory. Guns like everything else need to be maintained and replaced and preventing future gun sales is simply disarming the population via attrition.

Buy back is pointless. Buying back from law-abiding citizens is counterproductive, unless you see all citizens as being threats. You're disarming the very folks that you wish to have weapons. Or, you'll just be paying for weapons that are simply not wanted.

Background checks? I'm not necessarily against this but, what exactly are you checking? If the buyer is a convict? I'll echo the abortion stuff- your privacy is guaranteed for aborting your kid but everything else the government ought to be keeping tabs on?

Guns are more likely to kill a family member than an intruder, but the point about being disarmed is not just semantics. It means different things.

If you can't buy leather jackets next year, you are not being "stripped naked."

Similarly, when a policeman disarms a suspect, he isn't telling him he can't buy a new assault rifle next year.

You can make the point about attrition but it's not being disarmed. The sole point of using that phrase is to give the opponent's of gun control the fear that the government is going to break down the door and steal your guns. Patently not the case.

By disarming Adam Lamza's mother, you're removing her ability to defend herself and making her vulnerable to a whole list of other crimes. You also have no idea if Adam Lamza would have procured a weapon illegally through another means so you're making assumptings there.

Every member at the school that Adam Lamza went to was disarmed and you saw the vulnerability they were exposed to there. Adam Lamza knew that. Civil rights activists used to carry weapons because the government wouldn't vouch for their safety. If the government refuses to deploy the proper level of security that you require, what are you to do then?

Why would that be your reference- that if you ban leather jackets, that you won't be "stripped naked". That very approach should not even be considered. For the government to ban something and remove your freedom from acquiring something, it ought to have a bloody good reason. Perhaps you won't be "stripped naked" and perhaps there are alternatives, but you have your freedom infringed upon to buy that leather jacket, and that ought not be treated as a minor issue.

A suspect constitutionally is innocent and that suspect ought to have every right to buy an assault rifle, whatever that is, as he chooses until he loses his rights before a jury. This ain't France. You're assuming your neighbor, any citizen, as guilty and going on the premise that they are all threats. Similarly, you're treating the government as entirely pure. The government is there to protect the citizens, not to treat them as threats.

If you stop letting people buy food, you'll starve them, regardless if you're not taking food away from them. If you stop people from building new houses, eventually you'll have homelessness. If you shutdown the market for firearms, you do the same thing. You sound intelligent but you're not Bill Clinton- I'm throwing the BS flag.

The government may not be trying to steal people's guns, but the Democratic party is. There's been a concerted effort to chip away at the 2nd Ammendment for who knows how long. Then we have the President surrounded by children writing Executive Orders when this issue ought to at the very least go before Congress for debate, or we have the Government of NY pushing through anti-gun legislation in the middle of the night-- or we have you discussing banning the purchase of new firearms... no, there's no threat to freedom there.

It appears to an outsider that America is already in the grips of a tyranny, the insane desire to do nothing about gun violence leaving all citizens less free to pursue life, liberty and happiness with safety and security. How is 1 million Floridians carrying concealed weapons not tyrannical to those who aren't?

If those people are behaving in a tyrranical way then perhaps they need to be locked up. If, on the other hand, they're not behaving in a tyrannical way, then I suppose there isn't any tyranny. If, however, possession of a weapon alone is tyrannical, then I suppose there's a broader philosophical point that you're making, i.e. possession of something that someone else doesn't have or chooses to not have is tyrannical. Maybe having a dream team of lawyers and the ability to corrupt the local politicians and law enforcement to cover your butt may be tyrannical? Any thoughts on how to regulate that, because few like the Kennedys have it (known for leaving girlfriends to die at the bottom of frozen lakes) and the rest of us don't.

You don't have the freedom to produce heroin, even if it's for express personal use. Why? because the threat of you, as a citizen, distributing that product to other citizens is too high.

Similarly, you don't have the freedom to drive a car without a license, you're perceived as a threat to other drivers.

You also can't practice medicine without a license, because you might harm your fellow citizens.

It's against the law to purchase large quantities of explosives without authorization.

We restrict access to things that have far more benign uses and that are far less dangerous than guns.

But the term "threat" is wrong, the real term should be "risk." We don't license drivers because we think unlicensed drivers are actively threatening or guilty of a crime, we do it because the risk of unlicensed driving are high and not confined to the individual doing it.

Similarly, I hope you can concede that guns present a risk. You don't leave a child in a room full of chainsaws and you wouldn't leave one in a room full of guns.

Adam Lamza's mother possessed a Bushmaster. Whatever risk she thought she was guarding against, (home invasion, aliens, the rise of fascist dictatorship) was lower than the risk of the gun in the home being used either with intent or by accident to harm someone in that home.

In an ideal world, we would have a rational debate and non partisan research about the best way to minimize the risks presented by widespread gun ownership while still preserving the 2nd Amendment.

Unfortunately, in 1996, the Republican congress forbade the CDC from doing any research into guns. So we don't know answers to fundamental questions like, "Do armed guards at school work effectively as a deterrent?" "What kind of domestic situation makes gun violence more or less likely?" "Do background checks effect the secondary gun market." We don't know the answers to these questions because the CDC was told to be willfully ignorant. Instead we have to rely on threadbare patchwork of university studies using different standards and methodologies.

A quick googled definition of tyranny states "a cruel or opressive government or rule". My point is that the current American system of guns for everyone, serious background check loopholes and no limits on ammo can actually be considered a cruel or opressive rule. The inevitability of horrific and/or tragic violence and/or accidental death and injury arising from this policy leads to cruelty and opression for its victims. Therefore, I suggest that America is already in the grips of a tyranny, the tyrants may be well meaning, cautious, upstanding citizen gun owners but some of those guns will inevitably be used against innocent victims, who immediately lose their freedom possibly forever. However impossible it may seem today, the only solution is fewer guns in circulation.

Well, technically you can drive without a license if it's on your own private property. The license comes into play for using the public roads. Regarding medicine- to be honest I don't know much about certifications and the basis of that law.

Guns represent a risk as much as anything else in life is a risk. We purposefully surround the president with guns- lots of them, high powered ones in fact, and those guns are deemed not to increase risk but to reduce it.

I don't know the risks to Adam Lamza's mother, I don't know the risks perceived by her, and I don't intend to make that judgement for her. And to be honest, neither do you. How many people expect to be killed by their own kids? What are the stats on that one? We all live our own lives, and the founding of our nation was based on allowing people to live their own lives.. In some localities the police aren't very responsive to emergencies. In Connecticut, supposedly a state where the police are more responsive than others, it took at least 20 minutes to respond. In Connecticut, they didn't have 20 minutes. The tool they needed to stop the slaughter was a gun, and by law, that was forbidden. One can very well argue that the state bore responsibility because it forbade the very tools that would have prevented or stopped the tragedy.

To the larger issue, these questions you ask, why do you entrust politicians to pick the answers. Ultimately the answer picked will be by politicians, and they have no authority about the topics, and they are not authorities regarding your needs- you are. Obama for example knows nothing about healthcare, he knows nothing about you, but somehow our country determined he ought to make healthcare decisions for you- similarly with security, it's asanine.

Personally, I don't own a gun, nor do I want to own one. Ive used them in the service where i was surrounded by lots of 18 year old carrying arounf big ones and i didnt feel threatened because i knew any one that used one in the wrong way would be punished by the others with guns. Guns in the hands of good people save lives- just ask the president. He insists there be guns around his daughters all day.

The pen is mightier than the sword Anyways. I fear the president misusing his pen and signing executive orders he has no authority to than my neighbor with a pistol, and so should you.

You assume that guns don't save people. Even better, you assume that the chance that somebody has a gun doesn't save them. For example, to the Connecticut situation, the killer could make a very strong assumption that nobody in the school would have a gun because by law guns were banned in the premises. From your experience in life, you should know that people who cannot or will not fight back get targeted. You ban guns, that likelihood increases and endangers everyone.

You wont ever get rid of guns. America's leaders and elite will alway be surrounded by guns, because they recognize the value even if they pretend they're not there. Your just exposing the more vulnerable to being targets. I'm in a house alone. I don't own a gun. HOWEVER, to any criminal, I want them to a least be not sure and potentially think I have an arsenal ready to go.

There's no more universally unambiguous sound than that of a shotgun being pumped:)

The following are items #16, 17, 20 - 23, provided by the White House, of executive actions President Obama plans to take to address gun violence.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

So through Obamacare doctors are going to make their own assessments of their patients and submit their (unchallenged findings) to law enforcement authorities?

If the doctors aren't the ones making assesments of their patients, then who should? I imagine you'd have a much bigger problem with it if the assessments were made by untrained police officers or a new specialized bureaucratic organ.

What doctors are qualified to make such assessments? Given the shortage of MDs once Obamacare kicks in, most patients will be lucky if they get to see a G.P. More likely they will been seen by a P.A. or nurse who may or may not refer them to a specialist in psychiatry which is more costly for a system that's going to have to cut services to survive at all. This gun control list amounts to formally deputizing the medical field to do police work. The days of confidentiality between patient and their doctors will be over. What's next? Clients and their attorneys?

There was nothing new in today's proposals that hasn't been kicked around before or isn't anything more than administrative techniques which can work at the edges of the problem but will do little to solve the problem.

Why? There are nearly 300 million firearms in civilian hands as we speak with a lot of high capacity magazines to go with them. Nothing short of confiscation is going to change the landscape much and nobody including Obama is talking about that.

Why not? Besides the 2nd amendment, which might a bit difficult to get around, there is the small issue of a number of democratic senators in red states--far west mostly--which are loath to even bring up the subject because there constituency won't go a long and they could loose their seats. Harry Reid knows this better than anyone and he hasn't even agreed to bring discussion for a AWB because he knows there is no support for it in the senate.

So, we have the staged ceremony of the president signing something, with the all the usual constituency groups in attendance, to act as appropriate props. Never mind what ever was signed could not possibly prevent a similar slaughter, even if every provision of the 23 is signed off on. It's just political theater, folks.

If there is no guns ,the children in Newtown would not be shot dead. So i support Mr Obama's plan. The gun amateurs can go to the special trainning centres with legal licence, which can aviod the abuse of the guns. How dangerous the gun is. And I think a universal law shoud be implemented in all states, which can prevent the would-be killer crossing the state lines to the places with weak gun laws to get access to weapons. Amercians always say they respect one's life, but why so many people like the NRA members oppose such a benefit proposal even at a big potential risk of threating other' lives, just for their enthusiasm for the guns?

Your right, they would not have been shot dead. But if that boy really wanted to kill them nothing much would have stopped him. Everyone in the school was unarmed. Have you not been alive for more than 20 years? Gun laws have done nothing but escalate crime. That is a fact that you cannot deny.

Your right, they would not have been shot dead. But if that boy really wanted to kill them nothing much would have stopped him. Everyone in the school was unarmed. Have you not been alive for more than 20 years? Gun laws have done nothing but escalate crime. That is a fact that you cannot deny.

Your right, they would not have been shot dead. But if that boy really wanted to kill them nothing much would have stopped him. Everyone in the school was unarmed. Have you not been alive for more than 20 years? Gun laws have done nothing but escalate crime. That is a fact that you cannot deny.

You have just admitted to the commission two federal offenses in an open forum.
Q: May aliens legally in the United States buy firearms?
An alien legally in the U.S. may acquire firearms if he has a State of residence. An alien has a State of residence only if he is residing in that State and has resided in a State continuously for at least 90 days prior to the purchase. An alien acquiring firearms from a licensee is required to prove both his identity, by presenting a government-issued photo identification, and his residency with substantiating documentation showing that he has resided in the State continuously for the 90-day period prior to the purchase. Examples of qualifying documentation to prove residency include: utility bills, lease agreements, credit card statements, and pay stubs from the purchaser’s place of employment, if such documents include residential addresses.

See also Item 5, “Sales to Aliens in the United States,” in the General Information section of this publication.

[18 U.S.C. 921, 922(b)(3), (d) and (g), 27 CFR 478.11 and 478.99(a)]

Q: From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?
A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

What one is able to do has nothing to do with what is legal.
To confuse the two is to think like a legislator or a bureaucrat.
The fact remains that weapons buyers can and do cross state lines to get guns. The distinction between what one may do and what one can do is entirely germane to this discussion.

This issue is muddied by your thoughts. U.S. Citizens who exercise their right for gun ownership are not exhibiting an enthusiam for guns, they are making clear the boundaries of their soveringty. Guns may have a recreational function but clearly, that is not of much importance in the debate.

"You have just admitted to the commission two federal offenses (sic) in an open forum."
My point exactly!
What he or she did may be illegal; he may not do it. But he did it; he certainly can do it.
Laws must be enforced and enforceable to be useful and, even, to be respectable. To go around shouting, "You can't do that. It's illegal!" simply makes the shouter look the fool that he is.

We should, and do, tell people that they are not allowed to murder or rape, that they may not. We shouldn't tell them that they can not because that is not correct. Many can and do. If we can prevent it we should. And if we can arrest them and apply the full force of the law we should.
My point is that you don't understand the difference between two very common English words, "can" and "may", and are, consequently, unable to understand that denying permission is not the same as making a thing impossible ie, that making something illegal doesn't mean that it won't happen.
The "sic" was not there because of "of". I missed that. It was there because I cut and pasted your statement as a quote and I wanted the reader to know that the misspelling of "offence" was not my error.

Yeah and all those kids now have to live with the stigma of being disfigured and their families have to live with the costs of surgery and therapy for both themselves (therapy) and their kids (surgery/therapy). Or they can forgo the therapy and risk having their kids go postal in the future on unsuspecting innocents.

While states like New York and California are moving to strengthen gun laws, other states are doing the opposite. Lawmakers in Arizona and Texas, for instance, intend to introduce bills that would loosen gun restrictions. A Kentucky sheriff has said he will not enforce any new gun laws that he deems unconstitutional.

We all know the good guys with guns are drug-free, well-balanced, not alcoholics, and not trigger happy.
-- 13 Cleveland police officers who fired 137 rounds into car, killing 2, expected to be interviewed by investigators today
Excerpts:
EAST CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Investigators will begin today interviewing the 13 Cleveland police officers who fired 137 bullets Thursday at a car, killing a Cleveland man and woman in East Cleveland after a high-speed chase.
--
Pathologists at the Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner’s Office removed three dozen rounds from Russell’s and Williams' bodies. She was shot 24 times, according to a spokesman.
--
No gun was found in Russell’s car or along the chase route. No bullet or casing was found outside the Justice Center.
--http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/12/13_cleveland_police_off...
-
NPWFTL
Regards

But of course upstanding armed citizens would never be as bad and as sloppy about their firing as the jack-booted thugs of the government. Which, after all, is out to take all of our liberties . . . not least the liberty to be a total jacka$$ whenever we want.

But I heard that one of today's words was repugnant.
--
“Most Americans agree that a president’s children should not be used as pawns in a political fight,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said in a statement. “But to go so far as to make the safety of the president’s children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly.”

This has been a raging debate since the shootout incident. I agree to the point mentioned of removing the word "control" and use phrases like "firearm Safety" so it goes down easy with the audience. NRA has started their propaganda campaign to put pressure on Obama and ensure no unfavorable acts get passed. I think this is a battle of conflicting interests. If free enterprise and business interest are the topmost priority then I don't see any amendments in the law. However if we look at the Data it gives us a different picture. I studied the data for Gun ownership and found that among the countries with highest rate of gun ownership, US has the worst homicide record. Also interestingly the homicidal rates of countries with the lowest rate of firearm ownership is as inconclusive as the homicidal rates of countries with highest rate of firearm ownership:

You people with the "it will do no good" are completely missing the point.

How about at the very least, it will do no harm? Don't pull out the garbage about tyranny, gov can just send in a drone to take you and your guns out. Besides the powers that be have more sophisticated ways of controlling the masses, don't require weapons of violence.

Anyways, more likely it WILL do some good, by making them LESS accessible. Why not make fully automatic guns legal again? True, the fact that they are illegal does not mean one cannot obtain one or create one, but it DOES mean they aren't prevalent enough for nutjobs to easily get a hold of.

That is the point of limiting high capacity magazines. Limit their prevalence.

Take another look at your arguments about it only limiting law-abiding citizens ability to obtain these weapons. Ok, fine. Guess where many of these mass shooters got their guns? From other law-abiding citizens (parent, friend).

If those law-abiding citizens are not able to legally buy high capacity magazines, guess what? They won't be available for their nutjob friend or kid or relative to get.

The "harm" would be in the form of enforcement costs. Whether a law makes people feel safe is irrelevant to the sort of meaningful, rigorous cost-benefit analysis to which all regulations should be subject.

Five stand-alone regs may not individually pass "rigorous cost benefit analysis" . But together they may be very cost-beneficial. Do we nix all five? The NRA, for example, often frames its arguments this way: We can't solve the problem by outlawing 30-round clips . In reality, I haven't heard too many people on either side say that we could. Of course we can't. But it's a nice soundbite.

If the benefit of those regulations as a whole exceeds the cost of enforcing them, then obviously they would pass the analysis (with the caveat that if passing only four of the five would provide a greater net benefit, then only those four should pass).

And how much does it count that the (let's say 5 )new regs can protect both the child (who has no means of protection) and you (you have arms? a rifle? a pistol, etc. and you're a good guy who loses little but a few minutes to background checks--right?) Isn't it a false equivalency to compare an innocent 5 year old, incapable of self defense to yourself?

Given the Supreme Court's rationale in Heller, how many "assault weapons" are currently owned, and how rarely they're used in the commission of crimes, it seems impossible that any ban on them will pass muster.

More importantly, whether or not proposed would have prevented Newtown is largely besides the point. Preventing rare, but sensational, mass murders should take a back seat to the murders that occur with orders of magnitude greater frequency.

Counterintuitively - and sadly - this is a recurring problem in the US that has solved itself before and will solve itself again.

In Tombstone, population approximately 14,000, in the Arizona Territory, in 1881, there was a firearms problem similar to that which the entire US faces today. The marshal in Tombstone worked hard to keep the town free of firearms. As part of this campaign, he - Wyatt Earp - with his brother Virgil and a friend, Doc Holliday, a dentist turned professional gambler - met the Clayton and the McLaury brothers about 20 metres down the street from the entrance to the OK Coral on October 26, 1881. In less than five minutes, the marshal and his assistants reduced the number of gun addicts in Tombstone by three.

Today Tombstone, Arizona, is a pretty village of 1400 people. In 2011, there were no murders whatsoever in Tombstone. Although I have never had the opportunity to visit, it sounds like a pretty little town I'd like to see.

Since 1881, Tombstone has lost 90% of its population and virtually 100% of its firearms murders. Many people, including myself, attribute this to the propensity and ability of law enforcement officers like Mr. Earp to bring profligate and careless use of firearms to an end. Of course the cost in lives - guilty and innocent - was horrendous. It will be again. However, you can search the statistics and see that the last time firearms were a problem to public peace and security this is the solution that worked. (This history also suggests that one consider carefully undertaking travel to the US before departure.)

For lack of a better name, I call this the 'Tombstone Solution'. It is neither pretty nor humane. It's sole claim to fame is that it worked once before. I suggest it is the only one that will work again.